In a draft environmental impact statement, the Trump administration has projected that global temperatures will rise 7 degrees Fahrenheit (about 4 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century if nations fail to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, The Washington Post reported. The administration then used this projection to justify the President’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society,” Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for Climate Change Programs at the non-profit Climate Institute, told The Post. “And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it.”

The Obama-era standards, finalized after an agreement with automakers in 2012, would have required cars and light trucks built after 2020 to reach ambitious fuel efficiency targets — 41.7 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars by 2020, and 54.5 mpg by 2025. But the Trump administration’s 500-page draft environmental impact statement, issued last month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concludes that the standards would not have a significant enough impact on reducing global warming to be worth the added vehicle costs to consumers.

Reducing emissions sufficiently to curb climate change “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible,” the analysis concludes.

The report also projects that if the world takes no action to curb emissions, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would rise from 410 parts per million today to 789 ppm by 2100 — nearly triple the pre-industrial level.

If true do you think we should do anything to curb our emissions ? Or is it just bs commie babble? Or do you agree with EG and we can just turn the knob on the big climate machine to fix the alleged problem?

In a draft environmental impact statement, the Trump administration has projected that global temperatures will rise 7 degrees Fahrenheit (about 4 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century if nations fail to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, The Washington Post reported. The administration then used this projection to justify the President’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society,” Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for Climate Change Programs at the non-profit Climate Institute, told The Post. “And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it.”

The Obama-era standards, finalized after an agreement with automakers in 2012, would have required cars and light trucks built after 2020 to reach ambitious fuel efficiency targets — 41.7 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars by 2020, and 54.5 mpg by 2025. But the Trump administration’s 500-page draft environmental impact statement, issued last month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concludes that the standards would not have a significant enough impact on reducing global warming to be worth the added vehicle costs to consumers.

Reducing emissions sufficiently to curb climate change “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible,” the analysis concludes.

The report also projects that if the world takes no action to curb emissions, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would rise from 410 parts per million today to 789 ppm by 2100 — nearly triple the pre-industrial level.

Which member here says basically, not to worry, "free enterprise" is self correcting, and that applies here when we all drown?

OR the existance of MAN MADE Climate change from a “consensus” from the “Science Community” funded almost ENTIRELY by our “friends” in DC???

Those who haven’t been living under a rock their entire lives KNOW our government has a monopoly on manufacturing “crises”. Would it be so hard to believe that this may well be another one of their “products”?

OR the existance of MAN MADE Climate change from a “consensus” from the “Science Community” funded almost ENTIRELY by our “friends” in DC???

Those who haven’t been living under a rock their entire lives KNOW our government has a monopoly on manufacturing “crises”. Would it be so hard to believe that this may well be another one of their “products”?

It's not these reports that I accept at face value, it is the scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed journals that I accept as the best explanations for the observations we make. I posted this for the Trump sycophants on this site.

The thing about science is, you don't have to accept it at face value. If you have sufficient understanding, you can review the data and methods yourself, and you can replicate the results.

If you think the majority of the scientific community is in on some grand conspiracy, all in an effort to get cash, you are literally out of your mind (not you specifically, "you" in general). I'm not sure if you've ever worked with any scientists, but in general they are some of the most educated, honest people you will ever meet, and have a level of professionalism and integrity far beyond the average person. The idea that they are liars and con artists (as many on this site have suggested) is ludicrous.

You seem like a rational person so far, so I'm not sure what your position is, I'm just letting you know where I am coming from.

OR the existance of MAN MADE Climate change from a “consensus” from the “Science Community” funded almost ENTIRELY by our “friends” in DC???

Those who haven’t been living under a rock their entire lives KNOW our government has a monopoly on manufacturing “crises”. Would it be so hard to believe that this may well be another one of their “products”?

It's not these reports that I accept at face value, it is the scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed journals that I accept as the best explanations for the observations we make. I posted this for the Trump sycophants on this site.

The thing about science is, you don't have to accept it at face value. If you have sufficient understanding, you can review the data and methods yourself, and you can replicate the results.

If you think the majority of the scientific community is in on some grand conspiracy, all in an effort to get cash, you are literally out of your mind. I'm not sure if you've ever worked with any scientists, but in general they are some of the most educated, honest people you will ever meet, and have a level of professionalism and integrity far beyond the average person. The idea that they are liars and con artists (as many on this site have suggested) is ludicrous.

I’m no fan of Trump sycophants, in fact, I’m not a fan of sycophants in general. I suspect those who DO have a blind allegiance to Trump, would have NO PROBLEM with
with this report since it WAS reported by Trump’s Administration.

To your second point. Thank you, I appreciate your approval in not having to accept this data at face value...

Did you really just suggest that with a sufficient understanding and access to the data and the methods, you can replicate the results yourself???

A statement like this makes it hard to know where to start asking questions...

How do you know the data is accurate? How do we know the methods aren’t flawed? How can we possibly know our understanding is “sufficient”?

Let’s for a moment concede all of the above is “spot on”. This data DOES NOT EVEN quantify how much of this warming is borne out by “man made” use of fossil fuels...

That said, IF one were to use THEIR DATA, THEIR METHODS and THEIR EXPLANATION of what is deemed as a “sufficient understanding” IS BY DEFINITION accepting this “report” at face value. Some might even go so far as to ascribe this “acceptance” as sycophantic...

To be clear, I don’t view this as a conspiracy AT ALL. We know not EVERYONE IN the “scientific community” is in agreement on this matter. I have a much deeper question...

WHO EXACTLY is it that DEFINES who is part of this “scientific community”? How can we be sure those on the other side of this issue weren’t discredited into obscurity never having gotten an opportunity into this community?

I have no doubt many in this “community” are honest and well intentioned people. Certainly you’re aware of the pshycological hurdles of cognitive dissonance and biases inhibiting the ability to “unsee” what we’ve learned.

For the record, rejecting opposing points of view by ascribing them as ludicrous does nothing to refute their veracity.

OR the existance of MAN MADE Climate change from a “consensus” from the “Science Community” funded almost ENTIRELY by our “friends” in DC???

Those who haven’t been living under a rock their entire lives KNOW our government has a monopoly on manufacturing “crises”. Would it be so hard to believe that this may well be another one of their “products”?

It's not these reports that I accept at face value, it is the scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed journals that I accept as the best explanations for the observations we make. I posted this for the Trump sycophants on this site.

The thing about science is, you don't have to accept it at face value. If you have sufficient understanding, you can review the data and methods yourself, and you can replicate the results.

If you think the majority of the scientific community is in on some grand conspiracy, all in an effort to get cash, you are literally out of your mind. I'm not sure if you've ever worked with any scientists, but in general they are some of the most educated, honest people you will ever meet, and have a level of professionalism and integrity far beyond the average person. The idea that they are liars and con artists (as many on this site have suggested) is ludicrous.

I’m no fan of Trump sycophants, in fact, I’m not a fan of sycophants in general. I suspect those who DO have a blind allegiance to Trump, would have NO PROBLEM with
with this report since it WAS reported by Trump’s Administration.

To your second point. Thank you, I appreciate your approval in not having to accept this data at face value...

Did you really just suggest that with a sufficient understanding and access to the data and the methods, you can replicate the results yourself???

A statement like this makes it hard to know where to start asking questions...

How do you know the data is accurate? How do we know the methods aren’t flawed? How can we possibly know our understanding is “sufficient”?

Let’s for a moment concede all of the above is “spot on”. This data DOES NOT EVEN quantify how much of this warming is borne out by “man made” use of fossil fuels...

That said, IF one were to use THEIR DATA, THEIR METHODS and THEIR EXPLANATION of what is deemed as a “sufficient understanding” IS BY DEFINITION accepting this “report” at face value. Some might even go so far as to ascribe this “acceptance” as sycophantic...

To be clear, I don’t view this as a conspiracy AT ALL. We know not EVERYONE IN the “scientific community” is in agreement on this matter. I have a much deeper question...

WHO EXACTLY is it that DEFINES who is part of this “scientific community”? How can we be sure those on the other side of this issue weren’t discredited into obscurity never having gotten an opportunity into this community?

I have no doubt many in this “community” are honest and well intentioned people. Certainly you’re aware of the pshycological hurdles of cognitive dissonance and biases inhibiting the ability to “unsee” what we’ve learned.

For the record, rejecting opposing points of view by ascribing them as ludicrous does nothing to refute their veracity.

Veracity is tied directly to evidence in my view. If a scientific approach isn’t the best, most reliable method to determining what is true, what method would you propose we use in its place?

Another question: How verses are you on the topic? I ask because there are methods for determining how much impact humans have had.

I’m no fan of Trump sycophants, in fact, I’m not a fan of sycophants in general. I suspect those who DO have a blind allegiance to Trump, would have NO PROBLEM with with this report since it WAS reported by Trump’s Administration.

I think you will find that those on this forum who have shown a blind allegiance to Trump will suggest that this report is the result of deep state agents within the Trump administration.

To your second point. Thank you, I appreciate your approval in not having to accept this data at face value...

Did you really just suggest that with a sufficient understanding and access to the data and the methods, you can replicate the results yourself???

Yep. That's how science works. Realize that when I say sufficient, I mean that you need some pretty serious education, and access to data and equipment. The lay person will generally have neither. Not understanding the methods, and not working to put yourself in a position to gain access to the data or data acquisition methods isn't an argument against the validity of the methods or the conclusions reached.

How do you know the data is accurate? How do we know the methods aren’t flawed? How can we possibly know our understanding is “sufficient”?

If you question these things, you have to research the calibration methods, and study data reduction and analysis methods. "Sufficient" isn't an absolute term, in fact, nothing in a scientific approach is really "absolute". We understand things to varying degrees of certainty in conjunction with the evidence and observations we make.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

That said, IF one were to use THEIR DATA, THEIR METHODS and THEIR EXPLANATION of what is deemed as a “sufficient understanding” IS BY DEFINITION accepting this “report” at face value. Some might even go so far as to ascribe this “acceptance” as sycophantic...

This all comes back to sufficient understanding. I will give you the point that it is possible to fake data, and use totally bogus methodology, and to completely fabricate explanations, HOWEVER, that is not science. In order for what you're inferring to be true, there would have to be some type of global conspiracy that is horrifically dishonest and evil, being perpetrated by some of the most honest and decent humans alive. The likelihood of this is laughably infinitesimal, and frankly absurd. You would need to provide some serious evidence for that claim to be taken seriously at all.

WHO EXACTLY is it that DEFINES who is part of this “scientific community”? How can we be sure those on the other side of this issue weren’t discredited into obscurity never having gotten an opportunity into this community?

Again, there is no absolute line in the sand. For what you're saying to be true, there has to be some kind of global conspiracy. I'm sure what your suggesting has happened in isolated cases, but the peer review process, and the tenets of the scientific process by and large encourage dissenting views as long as they are backed by evidence and sound methodology, i.e., the results are demonstrable and repeatable.

I have no doubt many in this “community” are honest and well intentioned people. Certainly you’re aware of the pshycological hurdles of cognitive dissonance and biases inhibiting the ability to “unsee” what we’ve learned.

I am. Certainly you're aware that the scientific method and the peer review system are the best tools we have to combat bias. You also must be aware that scientists are motivated to find flaws and problems with other scientists work. That's how discoveries and careers are made, and how our collective knowledge is advanced.

For the record, rejecting opposing points of view by ascribing them as ludicrous does nothing to refute their veracity.

I ascribe non evidence based, illogical views as ludicrous. For claims to have veracity, they need to be supported by evidence. Unless you have a solipsistic world view, you must recognize that a rational and logical interpretation of the evidence through the scientific method is the best tool we have to uncover the nature of reality, including the mechanisms and causes for various phenomena.

Perhaps someone should carefully read the actual report instead of the blatherings of the Washington Post.

The report concludes that changes in transportation emission standard would have virtually NO EFFECT
on global emissions by the year 2100. And further that Obama era emission and fuel consumption standards
should be revised downward.

Following is an excerpt of the partial conclusions presented in the report.

• Estimated CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for 2100 would range from 789.76 parts per
million (ppm) under Alternative 1 to approximately 789.11 ppm under the No Action Alternative,
indicating a maximum atmospheric CO2 increase of approximately 0.65 ppm compared to the No
Action Alternative. Atmospheric CO2 concentration under Alternative 7 would increase by 0.16 ppm
compared with the No Action Alternative.

Regardless of which action is taken, the difference in CO2 by 2100 is virtually unchanged.

• Global mean surface temperature is projected to increase by approximately 3.48°C (6.27°F) under
the No Action Alternative by 2100. Implementing the lowest emissions alternative (Alternative 7)
would increase this projected temperature rise by 0.001°C (0.002°F), while implementing the
highest emissions alternative (Alternative 1) would increase projected temperature rise by 0.003°C
(0.005°F).

Comparing the highest emissions alternative to the lowest emissions
alternative will result in a temperature difference of 0.002F to 0.005F by the year 2100. No provision was made for
solar activity which is the greatest single factor in global warming (or cooling).

• Projected sea-level rise in 2100 ranges from a low of 76.28 centimeters (30.03 inches) under the
No Action Alternative to a high of 76.34 centimeters (30.06 inches) under Alternative 1. Alternative
1 would result in an increase in sea level equal to 0.06 centimeter (0.02 inch) by 2100 compared
with the level projected under the No Action Alternative compared to an increase under Alternative
7 of 0.01 centimeter (0.004 inch) compared with the No Action Alternative.

The difference in sea level rise is expected to be 0.020 in to 0.004 in when comparing
NoAction to Alternative 1. Sea levels will rise no matter what the emissions levels are.

• Global mean precipitation is anticipated to increase by 5.85 percent by 2100 under the No Action
Alternative. Under the action alternatives, this increase in precipitation would be increased further
by less than 0.01 percent.

• Ocean pH in 2100 is anticipated to be 8.2716 under Alternative 7, about 0.0001 less than the No
Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, ocean pH in 2100 would be 8.2713, or 0.0003 less than the
No Action Alternative.

At some point the ability to accurately measure the expected changes becomes problematic; in fact not possible.
Note that all presented data are from models that have been shown to be inaccurate and not from actual measured data.

The bottom line is that transportation emissions and fuel standards will have virtually NO EFFECT on future climate conditions projected out to the year 2100.

Perhaps someone should carefully read the actual report instead of the blatherings of the Washington Post.

I want the conspiracy theorist, science denying Trump supporter in here to at least read chapter 5 of the report, and let it sink in that the science, and the conclusions on the topic are very solid, and understood to a high degree of certainty. There is so much misinformation and outright lies posted on this forum on a daily basis that it boggles the mind. It's basically just an ignorance circle jerk.

Here is the full report. All the deniers need to at least read chapter 5. This is from Trump's administration guys.